Jurassic Park db forum

If you wan't mula try to capture Ogopogo (spelling?) Theres some two million reward a while ago though I'm not sure it still there.

Alex, next time I say something you go and research it before you start acting like a retard. You've only accomplished making yourself appear even more gay.

Here is one of many articles concerning it...

http://www.fb.com/views/focus/fo96/fo0304.html

I still stand by my point. You can't consider something endangered unless you know it exists. Just because a few politicians say it's endangered doesn't make it so.

I think the conclusion should be more along the lines of "Just because there isn't enough proof doesn't make the species any less endangered and/or rare."

Just recently they found a new and large primate in Africa, which is supposedly larger then gorillas. Just because the creature was rather elusive didn’t make its existence any less real.

Most, if not all researchers who study Bigfoot would have to agree that there is enough conclusive proof to confirm that Sasquatchs’ exist without directly having to see it. Take black holes for example, no one has yet proved their existence directly, but no serious scientist would dispute the reality.

The point is, you don’t need to “see” something to know it’s there and that it’s real. So why the hell not label the Bigfoot as being endangered?

You’re just ignorant of the very large multitude of facts and evidence, and until you witness them individually you have no business disputing Bigfoot’s existence.

</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="85%" align="center"><tr><td><font class="small">Quoting :</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" border="0" background="#111111" bgcolor="#111111" width="100%"><tr><td><table cellpading="3" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"><tr><td class="darktable"><font class="small">Most, if not all researchers who study Bigfoot would have to agree that there is enough conclusive proof to confirm that Sasquatchs’ exist without directly having to see it. Take black holes for example, no one has yet proved their existence directly, but no serious scientist would dispute the reality.</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table><font class="post">

We've seen black holes.

</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="85%" align="center"><tr><td><font class="small">Quoting :</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" border="0" background="#111111" bgcolor="#111111" width="100%"><tr><td><table cellpading="3" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"><tr><td class="darktable"><font class="small">The point is, you don’t need to “see” something to know it’s there and that it’s real. So why the hell not label the Bigfoot as being endangered?</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table><font class="post">

Seeing is believing. I've seen all the other endangered species. I've never seen Bigfoot, no one has brought up conclusive proof to its existence. Therefore, I don't believe it should be considered endangered.

</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="85%" align="center"><tr><td><font class="small">Quoting :</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" border="0" background="#111111" bgcolor="#111111" width="100%"><tr><td><table cellpading="3" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"><tr><td class="darktable"><font class="small">You’re just ignorant of the very large multitude of facts and evidence, and until you witness them individually you have no business disputing Bigfoot’s existence. </td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table><font class="post">

I can dispute it if I want, it's my opinion that it should not be considered an endangered species. I believe in the possibility that Bigfoot might exist, but it's a small belief because it's hard for anything to go unnoticed in this highly-populated country.

Actually we've seen traces of black holes. Swirling matter around a central area. But were still "seeing" it. We have no elegible proof [bigfoot] surely exists.

</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="85%" align="center"><tr><td><font class="small">Quoting :</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" border="0" background="#111111" bgcolor="#111111" width="100%"><tr><td><table cellpading="3" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"><tr><td class="darktable"><font class="small">We've seen black holes.</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table><font class="post">
Wrong, wrong and wrong. We have not "seen" black holes. They distort space so severely that not even light can escape their gravitational pull. If light can’t escape the event horizon then we can never see them, because, after all, there is nothing to see. The only thing scientists have observed are the effects and commotion caused by something that fits the profile of a back hole. They’ve used gravitational rays, they’ve detected the X-rays emitted from black holes, they’ve observed stars being devoured et cetera, and that’s it. But never “seen” it, just the effects, therefore scientists cannot be absolutely sure that whatever is out there is a black hole, all they know for sure is that what ever it is produces similar results.

</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="85%" align="center"><tr><td><font class="small">Quoting :</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" border="0" background="#111111" bgcolor="#111111" width="100%"><tr><td><table cellpading="3" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"><tr><td class="darktable"><font class="small">Seeing is believing. I've seen all the other endangered species. I've never seen Bigfoot, no one has brought up conclusive proof to its existence. Therefore, I don't believe it should be considered endangered.</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table><font class="post">
Seeing is not believing in a situation like this, literally speaking. Have you ever seen a black hole? Nope. Maybe a few pictures, some, if not all of which were probably digitally rendered. Do you believe in them? Obviously. Good job contradicting yourself there, and don’t give me that bullshit of you seeing every endangered animal species. They are discovering hundreds of new creatures and plants every single day, some of which make it on the list immediately. I know for a fact that was either exaggeration or just lies. And as far as solid proof goes, that’s your ignorance speaking again. The fact is that conclusive proof does actually exist. I suggest you go watch the documentary titled “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science”, which has actually become a best-seller due to its quality. The only other documentary I’ve ever seen that compares is “The Journey of Man” by geneticist Spencer Wells. Also, you may want to watch the DVD of the Bigfoot Symposium, which occurred in California earlier this year.

</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="85%" align="center"><tr><td><font class="small">Quoting :</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" border="0" background="#111111" bgcolor="#111111" width="100%"><tr><td><table cellpading="3" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"><tr><td class="darktable"><font class="small">I can dispute it if I want, it's my opinion that it should not be considered an endangered species. I believe in the possibility that Bigfoot might exist, but it's a small belief because it's hard for anything to go unnoticed in this highly-populated country.</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table><font class="post">
I will not sit here and argue with someone who cares so little they refuse to see the facts themselves. I’m trying to have a scientific dispute here, not argue with someone’s whose education in the Sasquatch mystery is limited. Your personal opinion has absolutely no use to this debate if you cannot back it up your claims with legitimate facts.

</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="85%" align="center"><tr><td><font class="small">Quoting :</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" border="0" background="#111111" bgcolor="#111111" width="100%"><tr><td><table cellpading="3" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"><tr><td class="darktable"><font class="small">Actually we've seen traces of black holes. Swirling matter around a central area. But were still "seeing" it. We have no elegible proof [bigfoot] surely exists.</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table><font class="post">
Lilgamefreek, no, don’t be stupid. You mean we’re seeing the effects, not the actual entity. And please read what I wrote to Alex.

</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="85%" align="center"><tr><td><font class="small">Quoting :</font><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" border="0" background="#111111" bgcolor="#111111" width="100%"><tr><td><table cellpading="3" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%"><tr><td class="darktable"><font class="small">Your personal opinion has absolutely no use to this debate if you cannot back it up your claims with legitimate facts.</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table><font class="post">

That's what the point of debates are, to argue opinions. I believe there is no proof from shows I've watched and books I've read that Bigfoot exists.

...

Alex, you've been watching the wrong TV shows and reading the wrong books.

Roque, show me a source which proves your statement. Frankly, I do not believe it.